oooh! i get a triple dose!
>it's a rhetorical move.
i know.
>I turn to y'all and say, can y'all believe he said that?
right. it's a rhetorical move designed to assert control over the convo.
you invoke the audience to assert power over ken. you are so certain he's
wack, iow, you are certain others with agree and are bold enough to take
the risk. especially true in a form where you can't read the audience.
:) if others respond to concur, you shut ken down. if no one responds,
then you can, generally, assume that everyone agreed with you too and were
just being good sports to allow ken to crawl away wimpering.
:)
>I note that in in his response, he doesn't actually engage; he just say
>that he doesn't agree and that he still thinks Habermas is the king of
>social theory. I really would like to know, Kenneth, why the criticism is
>misguided. As for me, I still haven't been given an incentive to back to
>Habermas. --jks
calling him kenneth is another rhetorical move, too, right?
(didja feel the poke in the ribs?)
heh.
but anyway, i didn't think anyone was trying to get you to take up habermas again. i agree that ken's made some mistakes in explaining what he's saying of course and, i argue, puts to much ON habermas for me to feel that he's actually engaged in an even-handed elaboration of his work.
kelley